I am inclined to this view because of the settled principle of law that a court cannot, in an interlocutory application, decide an issue in the substantive case or appeal. See Akapor v Hakeem Habeeb (1992) 6 NWLR (Part 249) 266, Victory Merchant Bank Ltd v Pelfaco Ltd (1993) 9 NWLR (Part 317) 340; Amiara v Alo (1995) 7 NWLR (Part 409)623; A.C. B. LTD v Awogboro (1996) 3 NWLR (Part 437) 383.
— F.F. Tabai, JSC. Shinning Star Nig. Ltd. v. AKS Steel Nigeria Ltd. (2011) – SC. 101/2010
SHARE ON
It is indeed settled law that the court, in determining an interlocutory application or the issue of jurisdiction, should refrain from delving into or determining the issues in controversy in the substantive suit before deciding whether it has jurisdiction to entertain the entire proceeding. See Akinrinmisi v Maersk (Nig) Ltd (2013) 10 NWLR Part 1361 Page 73 at 86 Para A-C per Muntaka Coomassie JSC; James v INEC (2015) 12 NWLR Part 1474 Page 538 at 577 Para C-F per Kekere-Ekun JSC.
— O. Adefope-Okojie, JCA. Kanu v FRN (2022) – CA/ABJ/CR/625/2022
An interlocutory application is that application which does not decide the rights of the parties but are made for the purpose of: (a) Keeping things in status quo till the rights of the parties can be decided; (b) Obtaining some direction of the court as to how the cause of action is to be conducted; (c) Determining what is to be done in the progress of the cause of action for the purpose of enabling the court ultimately to decide upon the rights of the parties. Therefore an order of court is interlocutory when it does not deal with the final rights of the parties.
— M.U. Peter-Odili, JSC. Ugo v. Ugo (2007) – CA/A/110/2007
In my view, there must be endorsed on the writ of the plaintiff the commission of a wrong which is the cause of an action followed by an interlocutory application. Where an interlocutory application as in the motion before the court below is not based on a substantive relief claimed in the writ of summons, the court lacks jurisdiction to award such injunctive order.
— O. Kolawole JCA. Ladoke & Ors. V. Olobayo & Anor. (CA/L/137M/92 , 17 July 1992)
THE COURT WILL NOT SHUT OUT A MOTION BECAUSE IT WAS BROUGHT UNDER A WRONG RULE
Fidelity Bank Plc v. Sagecom Concepts Ltd. (2026) 10 NWLR (Pt. 2049) 199 at 239, B—F, per Umar JSC: ‘The objection of the judgment creditor/respondent that no discernible or credible rule has been cited in support of the application is also of no moment. The application was brought under Order 4 rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules which is quite relevant. It was also brought under section 6 – of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), which empowers the court to deal with matters falling within its jurisdiction. Again, the application was brought under the expansive inherent jurisdiction of the court. These are sufficient Rules and laws to predicate this application and I do not agree that the motion was not brought under the relevant Rules of court. Granted that there are more precise Rules of this court that were not specifically mentioned on the face of the motion paper, such will not undermine the prospect of the motion. Even where an applicant had brought an application under a wrong rule, that would not on its own deny a fair consideration of the application on its merit. The court will not shut out an applicant simply because the application was brought under a wrong rule of the court. See: Uchendu & Ors v. Ogboni & Ors (1999) LPELR 3287, (1999) LCN2871 SC; (1999) 5 NWLR (Pt. 603) 337, Oladipo Maja v. Costa Samouris (2002) LPELR 1874 (SC); (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt. 765) 78,Falobi v. Falobi (1976) LPELR 1236(SC). I therefore, hold that the contention of the judgment creditor/respondent on this score is devoid of any merit.’
Appeal on this matter was filed in the Court of Appeal on 3rd March, 2000. Today is 14th December, 2007. It has taken more than seven years to fight the admissibility of an exhibit, an issue which could have been taken at the end of the case after final judgment. In order to save litigation time and money of litigants, it is my view that all interlocutory appeals must stop at the Court of Appeal. This will involve the amendment of section 241 of the 1999 Constitution. I do not think it is out of place to recall that the Constitutional Debate Coordinating Committee, 1998, under my Chairmanship, which recommendations gave birth to the 1999 Constitution, recommend to the Provisional Ruling Council during the Military Regime of General Abdul Salami Abubakar, that all interlocutory appeals should stop at the Court of Appeal. The Council in its wisdom rejected the recommendation. In view of the fact that the Supreme Court is inundated with interlocutory appeals, which take so much of the time of the court, a situation which results in congestion of the court, it is hoped that the National Assembly will amend section 241 of the Constitution to make the Court of Appeal a final court in interlocutory appeals. That will save so much litigation time. That will save so much money for litigants. That will save the Supreme Court so much time to take final substantive and final appeals. As it is, seven long years are wasted for no reason. I say no more.
— N. Tobi JSC. Musa Abubakar v. E.I. Chuks (SC.184/2003, 14 DEC 2007)
The Court of Appeal cannot go outside the terms of the motion however misconceived it is. It is bound by the terms or prayers in the motion filed. (Commissioner for Works Benue State v. Devcon Construction Co. Ltd. (1988) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt.83) 407 at 420). Since there was nothing to stay, the Court of Appeal was in error to have made the order prayed for.
— Agbaje JSC. Okoya & Ors. V. S. Santilli & Ors. ( SC.206/1989, 23 MAR 1990)
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry